Is Jesus Azizus Monobaz?

[Sanyam Deshi]

The dates are approximations, Harte. Nobody knows the exact dates of anything that long ago.

Sanyam, I really have no idea where you are going with this argument. The BBC is not the only agency reporting.

Director James Cameron and narrator Simcha Jacobovici are making Ralph's findings public now.

Ralph's findings on Exodus.

Ralph's findings on Mary Magdalene.

Regarding where I am going with this argument: my words speak for themselves. You don't need to read into anything and you can pretty much take most of what I say for what it is.

Thanks, for more examples of channels that don't promise credible programming running some more documentaries on people who create their own interpretations. It doesn't take much effort to realize that Ellis has his own biases against Christianity. Within seconds of going on his official website, I was reminded of the historical propaganda that occurred in Germany in the early 20th century. The only difference is that the subject of the propaganda was Jews, not Christians. As Harte so efficiently pointed out, Ellis is not very accurate in the points that he makes. Clearly, Ellis treats his findings as facts and his main priority is to gain anti-Christian support, but not the facts themselves. Unfortunately, you have directly picked up on this style of argument, and it has led to some self-righteous exchange of ideas. You shouldn't let other people speak for you, because I know you are capable for greater and better thoughts and idea-exchanges if you think as an individual. You don't have to continue this charade, Ren.

 

[Harte]

The dates are approximations, Harte. Nobody knows the exact dates of anything that long ago.

Yeah, they kinda do:

Radiocarbon dating has proven to much more effective in establishing an absolute date. A study led by archaeologist Sturt Manning from Cornell University obtained radiocarbon dates from 127 samples of wood, bone and seed from Akrotiri and other Aegean sites. Following calibration and cross-checking among three different laboratories, they date the eruption to between 1660 and 1613 BCE, within 95% confidence intervals.
In 2006, a team led by geologist Walter Friedrich of the University of Aarhus found an olive tree on Thera that had been buried alive by the eruption. Radiocarbon dating gave the tree’s date of death (and therefore the date of the eruption) as 1627-1600BCE at 95% confidence levels, which matches very neatly with the dates from Manning’s study.

Source

Harte

 

[PaulaJedi]

@Ren

I've got the book. I may be able to get 30 mins per day if I concentrate really hard. (Cleaning, laundry, business work, kids activities, homework, and distractions make reading difficult). I have problems with history, too, because there's not much to visualize in my head - dates and names drive me nuts. I HATED history in high school - but I am willing to give it an honest chance. It's just going to take a long time. I'll make comments as I read.

 

[Ren]

laboratories, they date the eruption to between 1660 and 1613 BCE, within 95% confidence intervals.

Not talking about the date of the eruption. Furthermore, 1660 to 1613 BCE is not an exact date, is it.

 

[Ren]

Thanks, for more examples of channels that don't promise credible programming running some more documentaries on people who create their own interpretations. It doesn't take much effort to realize that Ellis has his own biases against Christianity. Within seconds of going on his official website, I was reminded of the historical propaganda that occurred in Germany in the early 20th century. The only difference is that the subject of the propaganda was Jews, not Christians. As Harte so efficiently pointed out, Ellis is not very accurate in the points that he makes. Clearly, Ellis treats his findings as facts and his main priority is to gain anti-Christian support, but not the facts themselves. Unfortunately, you have directly picked up on this style of argument, and it has led to some self-righteous exchange of ideas. You shouldn't let other people speak for you, because I know you are capable for greater and better thoughts and idea-exchanges if you think as an individual. You don't have to continue this charade, Ren.

The History Channel isn't credible historical programming? You make it sound as if the documentarians are amateurs. You also characterize Ellis as an anti-Christian. Since you don't have anything meaningful to add to your argument that Jesus is not Azizus Monobaz other than to attack me and Ellis, you need to recognize that you lost this argument and just shut it. Your only purpose here is to come to this forum out of nowhere and troll me. Perhaps you are trying to anger me and get me banned? You're not the only stalker on the Internet. There are many others. Just be aware that I am also being closely watched and if you draw too much attention to yourself, you aren't going to like it. Not a threat. Just something that I have observed over my entire life. People that mess with me end up going away. I don't know how. I suspect it might be something black. Take care.

 

[Harte]

laboratories, they date the eruption to between 1660 and 1613 BCE, within 95% confidence intervals.

Not talking about the date of the eruption. Furthermore, 1660 to 1613 BCE is not an exact date, is it.

Which is why I said "they kinda do"
So, the Biblical Exodus took place sometime between 1660 and 1613? Is that your claim?

Harte

 

[Sanyam Deshi]

Thanks, for more examples of channels that don't promise credible programming running some more documentaries on people who create their own interpretations. It doesn't take much effort to realize that Ellis has his own biases against Christianity. Within seconds of going on his official website, I was reminded of the historical propaganda that occurred in Germany in the early 20th century. The only difference is that the subject of the propaganda was Jews, not Christians. As Harte so efficiently pointed out, Ellis is not very accurate in the points that he makes. Clearly, Ellis treats his findings as facts and his main priority is to gain anti-Christian support, but not the facts themselves. Unfortunately, you have directly picked up on this style of argument, and it has led to some self-righteous exchange of ideas. You shouldn't let other people speak for you, because I know you are capable for greater and better thoughts and idea-exchanges if you think as an individual. You don't have to continue this charade, Ren.

The History Channel isn't credible historical programming? You make it sound as if the documentarians are amateurs. You also characterize Ellis as an anti-Christian. Since you don't have anything meaningful to add to your argument that Jesus is not Azizus Monobaz other than to attack me and Ellis, you need to recognize that you lost this argument and just shut it. Your only purpose here is to come to this forum out of nowhere and troll me. Perhaps you are trying to anger me and get me banned? You're not the only stalker on the Internet. There are many others. Just be aware that I am also being closely watched and if you draw too much attention to yourself, you aren't going to like it. Not a threat. Just something that I have observed over my entire life. People that mess with me end up going away. I don't know how. I suspect it might be something black. Take care.

You make it sound like you believe everything that the History Channel spoon-feeds you. This channel and many like it are notorious for their outlandish programming and theories created to draw in viewers with sensationalized topics. The documentaries and their creators are far from amateurs. They are very good at creating their case and creating dramatic documentaries. You could call them professional liars, in a sense. This is not because they know that the information that they are spreading is false, but instead because they know that the theories that they create do not have enough evidence to be considered facts, but yet, they present it as such.

The fact that you have even bothered to state that bad things may happen to me clearly demonstrates that you desperately want me to stop creating counterarguments. You have yet to show a speck of respect or concern for me in the past, so there's no evidence showing that you would suddenly show something like this now. I have no other choice than to take this as either a threat or a sign of your lack of willingness to progress in this conversation. If you're being honest about people going away, I've got an idea for you. The principle goes something like this: it gets a bit tiring to talk to a brick wall after awhile.

I don't want you to be angry. I don't mean to troll you. I don't want you to be banned. My argument transcends the petty argument of whose beliefs are true. I argue for the respect of humanity. I argue for righteousness. I argue that beliefs and facts should not be mistaken for one another. I argue that every person should be judged as an individual. I argue that everyone should be allowed to humbly believe what he or she believes without being looked down upon for having that belief. The number one mistake people make in arguments is that they antagonize the other person and are unwilling to take the other person's perspective and ideas into consideration. I do not wish to make this mistake, even if those arguing with different opinions continue to do so. I have respect for you, Ren, and I have hope that you can gain a sense of respect and empathy for mankind as a whole. These are my honest words.

 

[Harte]

Thanks, for more examples of channels that don't promise credible programming running some more documentaries on people who create their own interpretations. It doesn't take much effort to realize that Ellis has his own biases against Christianity. Within seconds of going on his official website, I was reminded of the historical propaganda that occurred in Germany in the early 20th century. The only difference is that the subject of the propaganda was Jews, not Christians. As Harte so efficiently pointed out, Ellis is not very accurate in the points that he makes. Clearly, Ellis treats his findings as facts and his main priority is to gain anti-Christian support, but not the facts themselves. Unfortunately, you have directly picked up on this style of argument, and it has led to some self-righteous exchange of ideas. You shouldn't let other people speak for you, because I know you are capable for greater and better thoughts and idea-exchanges if you think as an individual. You don't have to continue this charade, Ren.

The History Channel isn't credible historical programming? You make it sound as if the documentarians are amateurs. You also characterize Ellis as an anti-Christian.

Ren,

The History Channel is NOT credible. Have you been to this page?

Chris White is a Christian, admittedly. But Michael Heiser is an acknowledged expert on languages of the Levant.

The info on that page is available as a "full movie" on Youtube, and that's how it's usually linked on forums like this. But the link I gave you allows you to just watch the parts you're interested in, along with a transcript on the same page as the vid. The transcript is footnoted and the references are listed at the bottom of each page.

There's nothing there concerning this thread's topic, but it will certainly serve to show you that the History Channel is NOT credible.

Since you don't have anything meaningful to add to your argument that Jesus is not Azizus Monobaz other than to attack me and Ellis, you need to recognize that you lost this argument and just shut it. Your only purpose here is to come to this forum out of nowhere and troll me. Perhaps you are trying to anger me and get me banned? You're not the only stalker on the Internet. There are many others. Just be aware that I am also being closely watched and if you draw too much attention to yourself, you aren't going to like it. Not a threat. Just something that I have observed over my entire life. People that mess with me end up going away. I don't know how. I suspect it might be something black. Take care.

Isn't this what you wanted? What is the purpose in your anti-Christian crusade thread title if not to create arguments with Christians?

Harte

 

[Ren]

laboratories, they date the eruption to between 1660 and 1613 BCE, within 95% confidence intervals.

Not talking about the date of the eruption. Furthermore, 1660 to 1613 BCE is not an exact date, is it.

Which is why I said "they kinda do"
So, the Biblical Exodus took place sometime between 1660 and 1613? Is that your claim?

Harte

There were no less than 3 different Exoduses.

1.) The Santorini ash fall caused a great many Hyksos and Thebens to flee north to what is now Israel.

2.) Amose I destroyed what is left of the Hyksos resistance in the Nile Delta and allowed them to flee north. He also destroyed parts of Canaan allowing the Hyksos to settle there.

3.) AkhenAten was enforcing monotheism throughout Egypt and he and his wife Nefertiti were forced north to the same place. The brother of AkhenAten was TuthMoses.

 

[Ren]

I have respect for you, Ren, and I have hope that you can gain a sense of respect and empathy for mankind as a whole. These are my honest words.

If I cared about your respect would I be bothering to play this embarrassing role of John Titor subjecting myself to verbal abuse and death threats from people who are offended by the truth that Jesus is fiction? Or frightened of the future that they are establishing?